Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Anyone else feel like conditional reasoning makes their brain go foggy?

In this episode, @AlexJacobs and @BaileyLuber respond to a student who scored a 151, took time off, dropped to a 140, and now feels stuck trying to push into the 160s. They break down why that score drop is completely normal, why a 163 by April or June is absolutely doable, and how to get unstuck with conditional logic.

They talk about:

• Why mindset matters more than you think

• How to actually understand sufficient vs. necessary (instead of just memorizing it)

• The indicator words you must know

• Simple real-life examples that make conditionals finally click

• How to drill smarter without overwhelming yourself

If conditional reasoning feels like alphabet soup, this episode will help you slow down, simplify it, and build it back up the right way.

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

There are two archetypes for answer choices: one that starts with something along the lines of "presume", "assume", or "takes for granted"; another that starts with something along the lines of "ignores", "overlooks", or "fails to take into account".

Most of us can do these questions based on intuition, especially if we use the method that JY taught us. I still visualize the goku doing his kamehameha blast on the car. But for some of the harder, more abstract questions, for me, it helps to realize what these two answer choice stems are saying.

Hope this helps, cheers =)

i dont understand why this is E

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

Seems likely my test center will be closed for this storm on the Gulf Coast, but I haven’t heard anything yet. How much advance is typically given for a test center closing and how would I be contacted? Email?

Hi! Have noticed a trend among some of my recent wrong answers, wondering if anyone has any insights into this. Twice in one LR drill, I got the question wrong because I was unwilling to equivocate two terms. Ex: The stimulus was talking about “a new trend in the writing of history”, and the correct AC used the term “interpretation” to mean the said new trend. Again in that same section I missed a question talking about “experience” in the stimulus, with the correct AC using the word “expertise” instead. 

The first question was a MSS, and the second a PSA… both rated as lower difficulty levels. The correct ACs were the ones I had originally been drawn to on both, but steered away from due to not wanting to falsely equivocate different terms! Any insight into this or advice would be very helpful!

These questions both came from PT127.S3, questions 3 and 15

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

I would love someone to help me with the understanding the underlying flaw. I have seen this stimulus type, and it seems very cookie cutter for me. In my understanding, the argument's flawed reasoning is that the argument assumes that 1. warmer air increases humidity, and 2. that the only thing that can cause an increase in rainfall is an increase in temperature of warm air. However, I am seeing some other patterns, it goes from a probable modality (using tends to be humid) to a highly likely modality (in the conclusion).

Admin note: added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-17/

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

I've been really trying to study LG for the Jan LSAT. The problem I'm having is that I understand the rules but I diagram the rules/inferences different then JY, thus I get questions wrong or questions take me forever to do. For example on Preptest 5 Game, I wrote the classes down and distributed the grades. While JY in his video did the opposite. If I use JY's diagram, every question goes by extremely fast. How can I get better at diagramming games that I am seeing for the very first time?

Whats up

Admin. note: Did you mean to send a direct message instead? Use Discussion > Discussion Inbox to send a direct message.

Is there a summary of all of the different question types for LR that briefly explains the strategy for handling each of them? I am not opposed to putting one together myself, but if there is already one available, well then that saves me some time!! Thank you.

Hi there!

So I finally started getting to all four a couple of weeks ago, which was really exciting for me (I'll do a write up on the 7sage forum posts that made that possible for me after Sat). What I've noticed in this last week however is, that I'm not getting to the last two or so questions (sometimes). I'm wondering if that's because of my policy of saving the comparative passage for last? There's no particular reason for it, it was something a fellow 7 sager mentioned he did because they gave him trouble and so I tried it out (though I haven't noticed the same issue in my takes). Sometimes I do it last because the comparative has fewer questions than the remaining passage (less point potential), but sometimes I just do it automatically rather than waste time thinking about it mid test, and I've almost been too afraid of losing the progress I've made to try the other way (I know, it's not something I should be afraid of and yet). Problem is, sometimes I get to the last passage with not much more than 5 min left. Maybe 6.5 or so. So I wanted to ask what you all thought. If I did the comparative passage earlier, do you think I would be able to get to more questions?

Hi everyone :). I would really appreciate some advice on the LR section of the LSAT. I have studied the LR section of the exam through 7 sage+ LSAT trainer. I have recently done around 5 sections untimed sections from multiple tests. I have been scoring around 15-16/25-26. I would really like to increase that score. I am wiring the exam in October and I want to get around 21-22 questions right under timed conditions. I was planning to keep doing full sections after sections till my score increases, and then time myself. I am also making sure that I read the explanation for why I am getting the questions wrong. I wanted some advice. Should I continue to do individual sections ? Or should I review the LR curriculum again ?

Thank You :)

Nimra

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

Did anyone else move immediately away from A because of the more absolute syntax that was being used? I answered incorrectly in both my regular round AND in blind review...

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I am having a hard time between Option A and E.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."